Talk:Dukat
FA status FA nomination (11 Aug - 22 Aug 2004, Success) *Dukat- Well written, documented, and extensive. One of the best character profiles I've seen. I added a whole lot and I think it looks great. Ryan123450 12:04, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST) **Seconded. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 19:11, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST) **Minor oppose. Needs a little cleanup with reference to.. well, references. Style should be adhered to (quotation marks), no need to repeat DS9 constantly, and any that occur in the main article should be removed from the separate section on Appearances. Would support once that is done. Support. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:37, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST) **Supported. extensive article. nicely done! --BlueMars 13:06, Aug 21, 2004 (CEST) Nomination marked by Redge as successful on 22 August 2004; Featured tag added by Ryan123450 on the 25th.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:28, October 19, 2010 (UTC) FA removal (19 Oct - 11 Nov 2010, Success) ;Dukat I dont know when this gained FA status, maybe the standards 5 years ago or so were different, but this article has quite some info missing (like the personal relationships section which is practically non existent). More elaboration on his relationships is needed, such as the one to Sisko, Kira, her mother etc. There is also some redundancy which I tried to fix but I think this article just needs an overhaul. There is a lot more that can be said about this man who played such a crucial role in the series. This article is not very comprehensive, as we strive to be here on MA, and just seems very abbreviated. It could use more pics and better use of the episodes etc. It could also be a little better organized. I added a pna-incomplete to the appropriate section(s) and at this point do not believe it to meet FA standards. – Distantlycharmed 18:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :I don't even see where the record of the nomination is. Without knowing why it was nominated, and given the points DC raised, I would support removal.--31dot 18:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC) ::Support - I found the nomination and posted in on the talk page; it appears to have been validly nominated under the rules of the time. The article has changed a lot since then, and I agree it is not as comprehensive as an FA should be.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:34, October 19, 2010 (UTC) I find it useful to look at FAs from like 4 or 5 years (or like this one 6 years) ago and re-examine whether they still meet the criteria for FA. As part of maintenance I would suggest. I am just now seeing similar problems with the Benjamin Sisko article, which is also a FA. Relationship sections seriously lacking and just not as comprehensive as a lot of the recent FAs. I believe the reason we need to re-examine older FAs are two-fold: 1) standards have changed substantially and 2) changes could have been made to an article in these 4 or 5 years that move it far away from what was originally done. Also, if a contributor today uses Dukat's article, for example, as a measure for what the standards for a FA are and then does not get the support during nomination, there will be a lot of explaining that needs to be done and justifications made as to why Dukat or Sisko get FA status and theirs doesnt, even though it looks "similar" in content. – Distantlycharmed 00:02, October 20, 2010 (UTC) :::Support, due to the problems discussed above. I also support the idea of ensuring, at all times, that FA's are consistent with our current FA nomination policy, whatever that may be at any given time. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC) FA status removed on this date.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 04:30, November 11, 2010 (UTC) List of appearances I strongly disagree with removing the full list of apperances from the bottom. I know it's official layout style but their has been alot of talk about this on the Memory Alpha talk:Guide to layout page. It's pretty unanamous there that a full list of appearances is helpful. I agree. The chronological list at the bottom is much better than citations dispursed throughout the article in a completely discontinous order. I think this should be changed back. Anyone else agree? Ryan123450 20:38, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST) Ryan123450 :Well, since I reduced the list down, I disagree with your disagreement. ;) The problem with such a long list, particularly with a central character like Dukat, is it makes the article look a little untidy in my eyes. The references presented in the text show episodes where the character was substantively featured and/or referred to, and the Appearances section should be used to indicate other appearances not mentioned, therefore reducing the size. Whilst Memory Alpha is not paper, there is something to be said for making an article uncluttered and well-presented. An extensive list such as would be required would not help in that respect. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:46, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST) ::Well, I'd say a complete list would be informative.. if there's no way to agree on having the list stay in its complete form here, how about at Marc Alaimo.. that way the user could find a complete, chronological list of his appearances as Dukat simply by clicking another article (and not taking up anymore space in this one) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:59, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST) :But the article itself is not cluttered, there is just an extensive list of episodes at the end, which I think is invaluable. The chronological order is far more helpful than only having the episodes listed throughout the article. Like you said DarkHorizon, Memory Alpha is not paper. Ryan123450 00:51, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)Ryan123450 :Perhaps we should look for ways to include the entire list without cluttering up the article. Perhaps by using a table of appearances with a colomn for each series? That should look a bit more orderly and not take up as much space. I'll try to make an example here, just give me a few minutes. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST) Maybe they're not all in the right sequence (had some problems with the table), but at least it gives you a pretty good idea of what it would look like. It's not too long, but IMO it is a bit too extravagant. Anyone have another suggestion? -- Redge | ''Talk'' 18:18, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST) I still don't see the problem with the original list, but if we're looking for other ideas I might have a good one. How about a link at the bottom of the page to a seperate article called Deep Space Nine Recurring Characters. It would "unclutter" all the articles with lists like this and give one place for appearance lists for all the ds9 recurring characters. Then the main article would be shorter, and the chronological list would still be available. Same thing could be done for all the series. Anyone agree?Ryan123450 04:26, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST) : Sounds good, but I'd go with List of Deep Scape Nine Recurring Characters. let's wait and here what others have to say about this idea. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 17:38, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST) :Well if no one has any objections I'm going to go ahead and do this. Anyone have any other ideas before I do so?Ryan123450 23:52, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST) :In my opinion, such a table occupies a lot of space, since some columns remain almost empty. I'd prefer a simple listing of the episodes or attaching them to their respective facts --BlueMars 23:57, Aug 22, 2004 (CEST) :: I meant that I was going to create the seperate page for references to all the recurring characters and put a link to it at the bottom. I agree with you about the graph. I is too bulky.Ryan123450 00:06, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::Creating a seperate page in turn sounds like a great idea... although it sounds like a lot of work, too. ;-) --BlueMars 00:09, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST) :::I suggest you create List of recurring characters and make a DS9 header, and let others fill in the other series. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 00:17, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::Page exists with slightly different title, i fixed your link -- Captain Mike K. Bartel :::Again, we're talking about a page that lists the episodes all the recurring characters appeared in. Some people have a problem with placing the lists at the bottom of the character's articles because they make the article look "cluttered".Ryan123450 07:16, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST) Legate status Was he not promoted to Legate before ? Tough Little Ship 21:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *He told sisko he preferred gul over legate because it was more hands on and less pretentious than things like emperor. 1985 21:56, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) **In Cardassian ranks, he's listed under the list of Legates, so maybe it should be changed or something. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 21:59, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I found out why, its an obscure reference he made in stating that he was gonna have central command make him a legate again. Nowhere else is he referred to as legate. 1985 22:02, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) **** In Sisko told him he was surprised that he hadn't promoted himself back to Legate. Tough Little Ship 22:03, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***** He was the military advisor to the Detapa Council before he got demoted. Its likely that was when he got promoted. Tough Little Ship 22:06, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ******The scene with sisko is the same one i was thinking of where he said gul is more hands on, i wasnt sure about the exact wording but you're right about that. The detapa council part can maybe be italicized if he didn't state it explicitly? 1985 22:09, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *******Dukat was a gul for the first three seasons. When the civilian government rose to power ( ), he was promoted to legate. When he was condemned for taking Ziyal as his daughter ( ), he was demoted to gul. When he rose to power ( ) he stayed a gul, and Sisko expressed surprise that he hadn't promoted himself to legate ( ). JemHadar359 Rollback The name "Skrain" is not from a valid resource. -- Cid Highwind 16:23, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC) :DS9 novels are not valid? ::It's important to note that the comment you responded to was made in 2005, and as such the name Skrain is mentioned in the Background section. Please review the canon policy for more information, but in short novels are not canon. 31dot 01:38, May 22, 2012 (UTC) Behind the Scenes Does anyone know who was originally cast as Dukat? He was supposedly re-cast halfway through the Pilot, with Marc Alaimo as the replacement. I don't know if it's pertinent, but it's a bit of trivia peopl might like to know.-- Jyhash 03:55, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC) :I didn't even know that. I couldn't imagine anyone BUT Alaimo in the role. -- Ben Sisko 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Death Is it really accurate to record his date of "death"? Since he was imprisoned with the Pah Wraiths, he isn't technically dead. 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC) S.G. Dukat Is it possible that S.G. means Station Gul? I believe it was only mentioned once in and it would make sense if he said his position after his name during his log entry. Just something to think about...--AndreMcKay 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC) *Yes, I put that note in there because I figured those may in fact not be his initials. Although in the non canon books his first name is Skrain, we still don't know for sure if the "S.G." Dukat refers to in that episode are his initials, or his rank. Station's Gul was what came to mind for me, so I figured I'd add it in as a side note on the Dukat page. - Thot Prad 16:38, 28 September, 2006 Becoming Prefect In Dukat says he commanded the station for almost 10 years, so he took command in 2360 or 2361. This very obviously collides with the 2346 date currently given. I don't have the episode where 2346 comes from at hand, how is that date presented there? Kennelly 15:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) :Line from Dukat in "I was the commander of this station for '''almost ten years'. When one knows the various corridors and passageways as well as I do... by the way, I love what you've done with these quarters...". Line from Dukat in , ''"By the time I became Prefect, the occupation had been going on for almost '''forty years'...". That would put the year around 2360 or so, as said. Now, where was the date 2346 actually provided in the episode ? I couldn't seem to find it in the script, but according to that, Dukat was prefect by then. The only main thing I can think of to somewhat smoothen these inconsistancies is that Dukat was Prefect in 2346, but didn't become Terok Nor's actual commander until somewhere near 2360. Can anyone shed some insight on this? I'm reading the second Star Trek: Terok Nor book and I want to see if the dates are inconsistant or not. - Thot Prad 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ::In Dukat is not portrayed as the commander of Terok Nor, but as the Prefect of Bajor. He has quarters on the station, but, why not? He's the Prefect. --TribbleFurSuit 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ::2346 was when Kira was 3 years old. That's how the date was determined. Besides that, I think that you have to take Dukat's statement from Waltz as total BS from an unhinged mind, minimizing his own atrocities to support his self-aggrandizement. Or, if you don't buy that, go ahead and just regard it as a writers' inconsistency. TribbleFurSuit 20:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) citation questions The following two lines are from different sections of the article: :He later rejected the title of legate because he felt gul was more "hands on". ( ) :Dukat chose not to promote himself back to legate, since he saw the rank of gul as more "hands-on". ( ) Are both citations correct? If not, which is? -- Renegade54 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC) :Sadly, I have not seen "Ties of Blood and Water", but I do seem to remember this coming up in a discussion between Sisko and Dukat at the end of "By Inferno's Light". --OuroborosCobra talk 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The "Ties of Blood and Water" citation is correct. I will now edit the article. JemHadar359 Ranks Shouldn't all the ranks be capitalized? gul=Gul and legate=Legate? --Morder 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC) DS9 commander: not 2346 At the beginning of the '''Becoming Prefect' section, it says In 2346, at the rank of gul, Dukat was assigned command of Terok Nor, the mining station and command post in orbit of Bajor that would later be known as Deep Space 9. This is not supported by the episode cited at the end of that paragraph ( ), and it's contradicted by : "I was the commander of this station for '''almost ten years'. What IS supported is that while Prefect in 2346 he visited the station and had quarters there. I'm re-writing. --TribbleFurSuit 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Dukat didn't try to kill Under "Madness" the page said "he attempted to kill Sisko before escaping in the shuttle." Which I think is a false statement. Dukat want nothing more than Sisko's acknowledgment, if not for his nobleness, than for being a worthy adversary. Dukat wasn't loved by the people of Bajor and Sisko was, that's why Dukat wants to prove that he is just as good as Benjamin. After Ziyal died, that is pretty much Dukat's purpose in life. In Waltz, he gives up trying to prove he was a noble and misunderstood person, he vows to destroy the things Benjamin cared about. So before Dukat is in the position to destroy Bajor, he would not kill Benjamin Sisko. Dukat wants to kill him when Benjamin finally recognizes Dukat's triumph over him. That is the reason why before Dukat left with the shuttle, he said to Benjamin ''I'm so glad we had this time together, Benjamin. Because we won't be seeing each other for a while. If he had wanted to kill Benjamin, he would have done it a long time ago. --Hansioux 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Dukat's Term as Prefect & Progression Through The Ranks I've heard some data that Dukat was prefect for 23 years (2346 according to generally listed timeline), and others list a little under 10 years (2359-60). Why the discrepancy 02:46, August 30, 2013 (UTC)